You don't even know the nominee, but that hasn't slowed down your nonstop crybaby act...
Posted on 07/19/2005 11:02:47 AM PDT by faithincowboys
If as it appears Bush will nominate a moderate named Edith Clement to the Court, will the Right bolt from the GOP in next years midterms? Bush, someone I have been a big fan of, is turning out to be a heck of a disappoinment. He hasn't controlled the borders and apparently only used the promise to appoint "strict constructionists" as a cynical ploy to get re-elected. Bush, like his father before him, is proving to be a huge demoralizer for the Right.
You don't even know the nominee, but that hasn't slowed down your nonstop crybaby act...
You're satisfied? Fine. But don't pretend you help him up to what he said he'd do. You got soft for him. Fine. We didn't. We didn't go asleep (completely) just because he's "our guy". You did. Fine, but don't act superior.
So if it is Edith Clement, is everything I said spot on?
Yeah, Alioto, Luttig. Lots of people. unfortunately, Bush seems to be intent on caving to Chuckie Schumer and the usual suspects.
In Europe where they don't let phone taps or lots of other evidence into court against terrorists on trial, Dredd would be desperately needed.
I can act superior to you because you're simply being an idiot. You've posted a pointless vanity making unfounded and incorrect criticisms of someone who might not even be the nominee, and using it to once again launch into pessimistic bashing of the President.
I haven't "gone asleep" on anything. I've evaluated Clement, and I like what I see (strong tendency to follow the law and Constitution, does not go in for judicial activism, and is a Federalist Society member). You, on the other hand, are pulling off a knee-jerk reaction based on your own pessism and inocrrect facts.
How is it likely that she's the pick? Do you have a source inside the Oval Office? Basically, you're just speculating and getting your panties in a wad over something that may not happen. Another pantswetter with a worthless vanity. Thank God, you don't have to waste your vote on another Bush presidency /sarc.
You make good points, but people in the know , like NRO's K-Lo seem to think that she was the far more liberal choice compared to the other Edith whose name was in the hat. It leaves me wondering why Bush--given his strong position-- wouldn't put the most conservative judge he could get through on the the Court. It's likely they'll attack Clement anyway, so why not put on a real conservative???
Was she the most conservative person Bush could get through the process? Didn't he, by apparently picking her, go easy on the Hard Left?
sounds like you need to change your monicker and put your faith in some higher than cowboys, whomever they are....
From Senator Specter... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1446143/posts
"The October 4, 2001 confirmation hearing for Edith Clement is available full text online. See S.Hrg. 107-584, Pt. 1 on GPO Access http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/senate14ch107.html. This includes submissions to the record, any follow-up questions, and her questionnaire."
I have to agree with you, faith. Bush is getting more cynical by the day.
I personally will bolt if we do not get a strict constructionist, especially regarding the sanctity of marriage and the right to life of unborn babies and protection for people like Terri Schiavo.
To: Dr.HilariousHere's how one lefty looks at her. This makes me pretty happy.http://www.nathannewman.org/log/archives/003227.shtml
So how bad would she be? She qualifies as a "stealth candidate" in having fewer published views than some alternatives, but the evidence is that she's a hard right judicial activist, especially on the issue of gutting the Congress's regulatory power in the name of "federalism." As Jeffrey Rosen in this article details:
Everything about her record suggests she would enthusiastically support the federalism revolution. This year, for example, a group of Texas developers challenged the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in an effort to protect a rare species of underground bugs, denied them a permit to develop a shopping mall. The Texas appellate court rejected the challenge, but Clement joined a blistering dissent by Judge Edith Jones (another possible Bush Supreme Court nominee) criticizing the panel for crafting "a constitutionally limitless theory of federal protection." Taken to its logical limits, the Constitution in Exile would call into question not only environmental protections but workplace regulations like the Occupational Safety and Health Act.
SimilarlyPeople for the American Way has this site up on Clement and details that she supported radically restricting Congress's jurisdiction over criminal law involving theft and robbery:
"In other words, Judge Clement voted to significantly limit the reach of the Hobbs Act and the authority of Congress under the Commerce Clause. In doing so, she would have overturned established Fifth Circuit precedent and ruled in a manner inconsistent with the law in several other circuits.
On the same page, PFAW documents her hostility to consumers and to juries having the right to assess damages against corporations who harm the public: This case concerned a truck accident involving an eighteen-wheeler tractor trailer...the jury found the truck company and driver liable and awarded damages, which included $200,000 each to the estates of Becky and Kallie Vogler for their pain and mental anguish prior to death, as approved by the trial court...the majority reduced the award to Mrs. Vogler’s estate to $30,000. So even where damages are hardly astronomical -- a few hundred thousand to compensate for the death of two people -- Clement's instinct is to second-guess juries in favor of corporate profits.
Now, as folks who read this blog know, I might be favorable to a conservative Justice who believed in real judicial restraint, including weakening Roe, but if that hostility to Roe is combined with hard right judicial activism aimed at dismantling the democratic power to regulate corporations, that is the worst of all worlds. And Clement could likely be that.
Bad on Labor Rights: In Avondale v. Davis, Clement argued that attorneys fees could be cut as "excessive" where court awards are low.
The reality is that economic recovery under workmens comp and other labor laws are often very small for low-paid workers, since they don't make that much to being with and damages are measured against ones earnings, so the potential costs of lawyers fees are about the only incentive companies have to settle cases. With this kind of standard, employers would have every incentive to stretch out legal proceedings, knowing no poor plaintiff could hire a lawyer who knew they'd have no ability to recover their legal costs.
Weakening American With Disabilities Act: In Blanks v. Southwestern Bell, Clement wrote a decision denying a right of an HIV suffer from even going to a jury to argue his employer refused to accomodate his disease-based disability and would only offer him an alternative job at much lower pay, arguing that HIV status did not constitute a disability under the ADA.
802 posted on 07/19/2005 2:49:17 PM EDT by Dr.Hilarious ("My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity."-Joe W)
How do you know? I'll wait till this evening. I'm still holding out hope for Ann Coulter, then Mark Levin to succeed Rehnquist.
I assume you're someone connected. I don't really have the time, just yet, to read the confirmation hearing transcript for Judge Clement. Here's a question for you: is Edith Clement the most conservative jusge Bush could get confirmed? Wouldn't that be a NO. Why did Bush blink?? Isn't he there to put the most faithfully conservative nominee that could get through on the Court?
"Protection for people like Terry Schiavo"
Because the federal government has the responsibility to interfere in state-level family court matters, right?.....
So she'll presumably never let down Big Business, but what's her position on BiG Base? Oh yeah that's right, she'll sell us out at a good clip.
Possibly. Her record looks like she is a judicial conservative through and through. Or do you want a judicial activist whose activism is conservative?
Didn't he, by apparently picking her, go easy on the Hard Left?
Assuming she is even the pick, no. I think he makes it harder on the hard left with this pick because they will have a harder time painting her as an "extremist" even though she looks as solid as a Michael Luttig or Janics Rogers Brown.
And you're indulging in name calling just cause you don't like the valid arguments that faithincowboys is raising. Based on Edith Clement's skewed (liberal) logic for declaring abortion to be the settled law, raises serious doubts in my mind as to the depth or strength of her "strict constructionist" leanings. Refer to my post #56 above.
Methinks she is another Sandra Day O'Conner look alike .....squishy soft, leans left and unpredictable!
Bush won't deliver!
Christians who elected him will bolt.
This will get us Hillary in 2008.
Bush is doing the groundwork for Hillary's campaign.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.